There is a silent revolution gathering pace in the corridors of the judiciary that could finally offer an alternative to the antiquated legal system that bedevils the lives of separated parents and their children. With MP Dominic Grieve's early-day motion calling for a legal presumption of contact, radical fathers groups threatening further civil disobedience and celebrities such as Bob Geldof publicly demanding change, the time is ripe. Everyone from parents groups to family-court solicitors agree that the current system is damaging. And now senior high-court judges are publicly conceding that the system isn't working and that sweeping change is needed.

The government has also recognised that the current family courts system is a drain on its resources. In the past year, there were 61,000 applications in England and Wales for contact from separated parents and £426m spent on family-court proceedings. "The situation has now become so grave that imaginative and radical proposals warrant serious and urgent consideration," says Mr Justice Peter Singer, a senior high-court judge. "With the family division in London experiencing a near 50% increase in its case load over the past two years, things have reached crisis point. The system isn't working in the best interests of the children. It is not uncommon to have a case where litigation may have been virtually continuous for four or more years."

At the moment, if separated parents cannot agree about arrangements for their child, one or both may resort to an application for "residence". The parent who doesn't live with the child, usually the father, then becomes the "non-resident" parent and the details of how "contact" will work are left up to the parents. But when consensus cannot be reached, they often end up in court, with a judge having to preside over everyday details. Singer says that judges frequently have parents arguing about whether a four-week summer holiday should be taken in two halves, or whether a child should be returned on a Sunday evening or taken to school on Monday morning. Although these are important issues for parents and children, court is a costly and ham-fisted way of dealing with them.

But campaigning groups now sense a major breakthrough, with the government considering a pilot project that could offer separating parents a workable alternative to the courts. It would be tested for a year in a London court and two other cities and the results would be closely monitored. The "Early Interventions" scheme is based on a model that was developed in the US in the 90s, and has been successfully used in Norway, Denmark and Canada, and is currently being being tried in Australia.

Even Fathers 4 Justice, whose supporters are marching through the streets of London to the high courts today and who would ideally like to see a 50-50 split, are supportive of these schemes. Spokesman Glen Poole says that alternatives to the family court, such as mediation work, are an advance, but that new schemes must have a presumption of shared care.

Current early-intervention schemes begin with a recognition that children who maintain a relationship with both parents after separation are healthier, better-adjusted and more successful in school. They grow up to become better parents themselves.

The scheme has dramatically reduced the number of parents who come before the courts. In the US, rather than having to wait six weeks or longer for an initial directions hearing, as they do here, parents immediately receive an information pack that gives them a clear idea of the state's expectations. Unless there is cause for concern, such as domestic violence, the non-resident parent will usually be granted access of alternate weekends and one evening a week. Parents are also directed towards compulsory mediation and parenting classes, which help them make the transition.

"The parenting classes don't teach people to become better parents," says John Lenderman, a Florida court circuit judge who has twice spoken to legal conferences in the UK about early-intervention schemes, "but to understand what conduct is acceptable and that there is life after divorce."

Separating parents are required to come up with a parenting plan covering everything from holidays to schoolwork and pocket money, which helps them anticipate potential areas of conflict. Mediation works to optimal effect because everyone knows what the courts are going to offer. There is also a package of support services, including high-conflict parenting classes, retraining for unemployed parents and drug rehabilitation programmes.

The difficult cases involving allegations of abuse or domestic violence are dealt with by a rapid investigation, which may result in qualified access. Lenderman says that high-conflict courses make parents aware that they get nowhere expressing their anger through the courts but if they persist, they are sent back to the classroom until they get the message. Early intervention is another key element. "The sooner the parents get into court, the sooner they're going to resolve their issues before they have adopted a post-dissolution lifestyle," says Lenderman. "If couples can face each other in mediation and learn to communicate, they have a better chance of being jointly responsible for their children."

These schemes are being used throughout the US with dramatic results. Veronica Carter, a retired member of the official solicitor's department, says that in California 60% fewer cases now reach the courts and attending parenting classes is the norm. Carter observed a class with newly separated parents where they filed in, waited for the roll call and took the session very seriously. "The mediator Barbara Brown was kindly but brisk. She launched straight in, explaining the state's expectation of ensuring that children have frequent and continuing con tact with their parents." The parents were then given the task of drawing up a detailed parenting plan. "The overriding message was 'You can do this, we're here to help you'," says Carter. The parenting plan is presented at a meeting with a mediator and the parent's ex-partner. "If you fail to come up with a parenting plan, the judge has the power to refer them to a custody evaluation session, which they would have to pay for," says Carter."

This process, achieved in a few days, often takes years and thousands of pounds in the UK. So it is little wonder that the pilot project being considered here already has unprecedented support. Duncan Fisher from Fathers Direct is optimistic about the chances for its implementation, since it could cut the numbers of contested cases in the family courts by 75%. "This is the first time there's been a workable solution to talk about and its support from such senior judges is a major breakthrough," says Fisher. "This is now the moment for the government to act on it."

Dr Hamish Cameron, a child psychiatrist who acts in family court cases, agrees: "The state has failed to be proactive in sustaining the child's enduring family relationships. The state ought to be promoting post-separation relationships rather than being passive."

Angela Lake-Carroll at the Legal Services Commission also recognises a palpable desire for alternatives among professionals. "What we have at present isn't serving the needs of the family. I've never been more aware of a time in the family justice system where everyone has been saying we really do need to change this."

The message from parents and professionals is clear: the project deserves to get the green light. If the newly formed Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Department for Education and Skills support it, divorced dads could be spending more time with their children and less time protesting in Batman costumes.